Obame re: guns" "I am constrained by a system that the Founders put in place"

[legaleagle_45]

How does that make me a loon?

Because you believe that a part of the Constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Does the second amendment cover other types of arms such as poison gas, or bacteria warfare? Seems we should have some groups in the US pushing for their inclusion under the arms clause. They could be even more effective than some simple assault weapon that can only take out a few dozen people at a time.

Arms, as that term is employed in the 2nd does not include poison gas, or bacteria warfare... or tanks or missiles or nukes. This is commonly referred to as the "nuke argument" and is considered frivolous in legal academia... as is the converse argument, affectionately referred to as the "musket argument".

Arms, at common law were single man portable and use items of offense or defense intened to be employed in man to man combat.

Rule of thumb...

Things that go “bang” are ok
Things that go “boom” are a Hocus Pocus no no.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Have to start somewhere. Then you heavily regulate bullets and guns. Things would start to get better from there. Like, where do you think the Mexican drug cartels are getting their guns? Turn the tap off, I say.

Did you know that China is one of the very few countries in the entire world that totally prohibits the private ownership of all types of firearms? Even Japan lets some of it citizens own shotguns.

China, obviously has no 2nd amend, nor does it have a 4th amendment or 5th amend... They can pretty well do what they want in their police state...

China, according to the latest UN survey on small arms, also has the 2nd highest number of firearms in private hands in the entire world... all of them illegally possessed.

Did you know that firearms represent late 19th century technology which can easily be reproduced with a home machine shop available at Lowes for ~$2,000.00? Did you know that in Hong Kong there is a thriving black market for homemade guns? Did you know that persons incarcerated in prison have been known to clandestinely make crude but effective zip guns? Did you know that Afghan Tribesmen are renown for making precision copies of fully auto AK-47's using crude tools and equipment? Did you that you are a fool if you think banning firearms will make them disappear?

 

[regent]

Does the second amendment cover other types of arms such as poison gas, or bacteria warfare? Seems we should have some groups in the US pushing for their inclusion under the arms clause. They could be even more effective than some simple assault weapon that can only take out a few dozen people at a time.

Arms, as that term is employed in the 2nd does not include poison gas, or bacteria warfare... or tanks or missiles or nukes. This is commonly referred to as the "nuke argument" and is considered frivolous in legal academia... as is the converse argument, affectionately referred to as the "musket argument".

Arms, at common law were single man portable and use items of offense or defense intened to be employed in man to man combat.

Rule of thumb...


Things that go “bang” are ok
Things that go “boom” are a Hocus Pocus no no.

Is that your interpretation, the Courts, the legal academia or the actual wording of the amendment?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Is that your interpretation, the Courts, the legal academia or the actual wording of the amendment?

The definition (updated in modern form) comes from Sir Edward Cokes's Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littelton 161(b), 162(a) and was employed by Scalia in Heller and by Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998). The actual definition is "Anything that a man custumarily wears or carries or takes in his hand to strike out or defend against another person."

No one in academia adopts either the musket argument or the nuke argument.

 

[regent]

Is that your interpretation, the Courts, the legal academia or the actual wording of the amendment?

The definition (updated in modern form) comes from Sir Edward Cokes's Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littelton 161(b), 162(a) and was employed by Scalia in Heller and by Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998). The actual definition is "Anything that a man custumarily wears or carries or takes in his hand to strike out or defend against another person."

No one in academia adopts either the musket argument or the nuke argument.

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

Nope, but because it was employed by both Scalia and by Ginsberg in two different cases, this is an indication that both sides of the political spectrum on SCOTUS have adopted the same definition.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The 2nd amendment is in conflict with "liberty" because you can't have true liberty in a society that threatens you with guns constantly, thus, something is unconstitutional.

Remarkable legal reasoning. Never in the history of the entire universe has such an argument been advanced... which can only mean one of two things:

1.) You are the foremost legal scholar this world has ever seen, far surpassing any former or current member of SCOTUS including but not limited to Marshall, Brandeis, Holmes and Cardozo; or,

2.) You are a loon.

I choose option 2.

A gun is a killing machine and I'm for heavy gun regulations. How does that make me a loon?

Because you dont know how important guns are to freedom AND you really think that bad guys wont get guns because of new laws?
So the innocent have no way to protect themselves....yeah that's a good idea /sarcasm

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ima's screen name is short for imamoron.

mentioning banned members by name? Good thing I ain't no right wing misfit. I'd report you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 2nd amendment has gotten more respect than you acknowledge, if you are to judge by actions and not words/arguments.

I would disagree. as the period from 1939 to 1990, the 2nd was considered the poor step child of the Bill of Rights. Surprisingly, it was legal scholars from the left who "rediscovered" the 2nd. The high point of anti 2nd attitude was the publication of an article in Parade Magazine by former Chief Justice Warren Burger in January 1990... not a scholarly work by any means and rather contradictory in content, but there it is. But something was already bubbling... Sanford Levinson's The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637-659 (1989) was an eye opening study from a well respected left leaning academic. What followed was torrent of research from all sides of the political dial and the results were quite remarkable... the individual rights thesis was the overwhelming choice of academics and earned the title "standard model". The revolution was completed in 2000 when the darling of left leaning legal academia defected.. Laurence Tribe, famed Constitutional Law Professor at Harvard wrote in his standard text, adopted by most law schools, the following:

[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.

Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]

The next step was to translate the findings of legal academia to the courts... and that sir is a very interesting story involving a doctor in Texas who obtained a ruling which rocked the gun control world and a young Israeli born lawyer who took it from there, fighting roadblocks erected by the NRA at every turn...

However, I digress.

Not only that, but you proved my point. There appears to have been less action and more talk. Not many laws regulating guns had passed federal scrutiny and been upheld.

The primary problem that I have is that so many people--- including politicians--- believe that any restriction is constitutional merely because some restrictions are permissible. Further, there is a concerted effort to undermine the acceptance of a clearly correct ruling in Heller. The recent regurgitation of a law review article by Carl T. Bogus by Thom Hartmann connecting the 2nd amend to slavery is merely in example. Bogus is aptly named as he was a director in Hand Gun Control, Inc and is an officer in Violence Policy Center. His law review article in 1999, The Hidden History of the 2nd Amend was totally discredited years ago and its primary thesis discarded by all 9 justices in Heller... but there its.



The primary ones that I am aware of were laws in the south restricting arms to slaves and free blacks and not allowing free blacks to bear arms in the militia. There was a rather unique law in Boston which prohibited the storage of more than 5 lbs of gun powder in any building and the keeping of loaded firearms in homes. This law was passed after firefighters were injured in a gunpowder incident. There might have been some isolated prohibitions of the transfer of firearms to Native Americans, but that was more common latter as firearms during most of the colonial period were a primary trade item with Indians on the frontier and there were even a line of cheap muskets termed “Indian Trade Guns” which were commonly used for this purpose.

The reason the 2nd mentions 'shall not be abridged' ...

To insure that the general population would own firearms and be familiar with their use so that they could be quickly organized into a well regulated militia if an emergency arose. By protecting an individual right to have and use arms for personal purposes, the framers insured that a large portion of the population would have arms and will be familiar with their use...

you sir have been granted a dispensation

Appreciated..

The 2nd Amendment was added "To insure that the general population would own firearms and be familiar with their use so that they could be quickly organized into a well regulated militia..." but what had to be added was a new clarification.

The reason the 2nd mentions 'shall not be abridged' ... is because without adding that it was assumed the authorities would eventually do what they had always done. With a 2nd Amendment without the phrase 'shall not be abridged' .. the general population could still own firearms and quickly organize into a well regulated militia, but without the phrase 'shall not be abridged' things would have just been the same.

 

[hortysir]

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

You mean like Bush was able to do with the Patriot act?

Either that or Obama's extensions and expansions of it

 

[boedicca]

Jay Carney, Obama's stooge spokes model, lamented yet again this week that Obama is Not A King.

 

[regent]

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

Nope, but because it was employed by both Scalia and by Ginsberg in two different cases, this is an indication that both sides of the political spectrum on SCOTUS have adopted the same definition.

Similar to the case or cases where the justices employed Jefferson's separation of church and state, and today has about the same legal impact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is that your interpretation, the Courts, the legal academia or the actual wording of the amendment?

The definition (updated in modern form) comes from Sir Edward Cokes's Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littelton 161(b), 162(a) and was employed by Scalia in Heller and by Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998). The actual definition is "Anything that a man custumarily wears or carries or takes in his hand to strike out or defend against another person."
No one in academia adopts either the musket argument or the nuke argument.

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

Supreme court decisions -are- the law of the land.
You can disagree with that, and the decisions, if you want - it just makes you wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does the second amendment cover other types of arms such as poison gas, or bacteria warfare?

Are these weapons suitable for and effective in service w/ the militia?
Are they part of the ordinary militiary equipment in common use at the time?
Are they suitable for anby of the traditional legal suprposes someone might have for a weapoin?
No? No? No?
There's your answer.

 

[regent]

The definition (updated in modern form) comes from Sir Edward Cokes's Institutes of the Lawes of England, Commentaries on Littelton 161(b), 162(a) and was employed by Scalia in Heller and by Ginsburg in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998). The actual definition is "Anything that a man custumarily wears or carries or takes in his hand to strike out or defend against another person."
No one in academia adopts either the musket argument or the nuke argument.

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

Supreme court decisions -are- the law of the land.
You can disagree with that, and the decisions, if you want - it just makes you wrong.

First, the Muscarello decision sounds like it is defining the "carry portion" involved in a crime and not the definition of arms.
Second, was Scalia's comment part of the decision or just a comment during the case? Maybe read the decision and then respond.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it was employed by Scalia does that make it the law of the land?

Supreme court decisions -are- the law of the land.
You can disagree with that, and the decisions, if you want - it just makes you wrong.

First, the Muscarello decision sounds like it is defining the "carry portion" involved in a crime and not the definition of arms.
Second, was Scalia's comment part of the decision or just a comment during the case? Maybe read the decision and then respond.

Nothing you said here negates the soundness of what I said, and so my statements stand.
Please feel free to try again.

 

[regent]

Supreme court decisions -are- the law of the land.
You can disagree with that, and the decisions, if you want - it just makes you wrong.

First, the Muscarello decision sounds like it is defining the "carry portion" involved in a crime and not the definition of arms.
Second, was Scalia's comment part of the decision or just a comment during the case? Maybe read the decision and then respond.

Nothing you said here negates the soundness of what I said, and so my statements stand.
Please feel free to try again.

Just read the decision, and it seems Scalia was on the losing side and the decision did in fact concern the "carry" issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First, the Muscarello decision sounds like it is defining the "carry portion" involved in a crime and not the definition of arms.
Second, was Scalia's comment part of the decision or just a comment during the case? Maybe read the decision and then respond.

Nothing you said here negates the soundness of what I said, and so my statements stand.
Please feel free to try again.

Just read the decision, and it seems Scalia was on the losing side and the decision did in fact concern the "carry" issue.

Again:
Nothing you said here negates the soundness of what I said, and so my statements stand.
Please feel free to try again.